T.P.R.Rajappan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.12.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Crl.O.P.(MD) No.362 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.334 of 2017 1.T.P.R.Rajappan 2.Tmt.Kanthaleelavathi @ Kuttaimani 3.R.Sivasubramanian 4.Tmt.S.Chitrakala ... Petitioners -Vs1)State through the Inspector of Police, C.C.B, Madurai in Cr.No.48 of 2009.

2)Mr.Ramkumar 3)Tmt.R.Gajalakshmi Prabha Ramkumar ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.211 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and to quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.G.Senthilkumar For R1 : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl. Public Prosecutor For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Pazhanikumaran

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.211 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

3. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant, a case has been registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.48 of 2009 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of IPC, on the file of the first respondent and the case has been charge sheeted in C.C.No.211 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. The said charge sheet in C.C.No.211 of 2013 is challenged before this Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.It appears that the petitioners and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably out of court and that they have also entered into a compromise they have acted upon. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 17.02.2016 signed by the petitioners and the second respondent in the presence of their respective counsel is produced before this court. As per the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo, the Defacto Complainant expressed that he has no objection to quash the proceedings.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the De-facto complainant submitted that the Defacto complainant is none other than the son of the accused Nos.1 & 2 and the other two accused are his brother and sister-in-law. The Criminal case arose out of civil dispute, which was amicably settled between the parties.

6.In view of the specific terms of the Joint Compromise Memo and the submissions of the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that no useful or fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence the criminal proceedings to Calendar Case in C.C.No.211 of 2013 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai in Crime No.48 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed in toto. The Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

Enclosure : Joint Compromise Memo (Xerox) 1.The Inspector of Police, C.C.B, Madurai.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to M/S.A.G.Senthilkumar, Advocate SR.No. 92518 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.362 of 2017 12.12.2017 am JM/KK/SAR 1/05.01.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/